Plaintiffs sued Uber on behalf of a putative nationwide
class of drivers for Uber, alleging, among other things, that Uber falsely
represents to customers that drivers will get tipped. I’ll only discuss the consumer protection
claims, but some others survive this motion to dismiss (including claims from
non-California drivers; Uber chose California law in its agreements with
drivers). The court dismissed the UCL “unfair”
claims for want of specific allegations, but allowed the “fraudulent” claims to
survive.
The standard is whether members of the public are likely to
be deceived. The complaint satisfied
Rule 9(b). It alleged that Uber
advertises “on its website and in marketing materials, that gratuity is
included and there is no need to tip the driver.” As a result, reasonable
customers would expect that drivers would receive that gratuity. But Uber does not remit the entirety of the
gratuity to drivers, making the statements “deceptive and misleading.” These
allegations were sufficiently plausible and plaintiffs provided the necessary
particularity. (Among the other claims
that survived were a claim for breach of implied in fact contract with drivers
as third-party beneficiaries.)
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment